User talk:Morder/Archive
21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]] :For Archives go here Edithint-images I actually meant to bring this up to you a few days ago and forgot. I was thinking of changing to a general image message and moving it to , since it seems we get more uncited or unformatted images than personal ones. I thought I would get your input first since they were your idea. - Archduk3:talk 11:25, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Or we can just make an that would apply to images and additions to articles. — Morder (talk) 11:36, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Sounds good to me, I'll add them to the message page. - Archduk3:talk 12:02, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Templates Makes it easier, Eh? My plan is to put an archive thing in there next. And a flag to hide the "start new discussion" thing. But for a starter... :) -- sulfur 20:37, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't want that "start new discussion" on mine. :) Really though I don't think it took much to add that header by hand. You do it once and it almost never changes. — Morder (talk) 20:39, January 6, 2010 (UTC) I've just had a few people ask how to do it over time, so I figured that it was easier to respond with a template rather than a chunk of code. -- sulfur 20:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, good idea then. :) Shame people don't seem to read it sometimes. — Morder (talk) 20:44, January 6, 2010 (UTC) Memory Alpha documentation category You need to add tags around the category to prevent the template itself from ending up in the doc cat. :P -- Renegade54 21:26, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :wtf...really? ok, gonna fix, thanks :) — Morder (talk) 21:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC) I would prefer you to be nicer All you had to do was say that you had trouble reading it, and would like me to change it. You did not have to act condescending about it. The policy itself says "Please." This indicates that it is a request. Granted, I didn't know the policy existed, but it's not my fault that no one else pointed it out TWO YEARS AGO. I don't have a problem with changing how I respond on my talk page if asked nicely. I just resent being told I have to. And I greatly resent somebody trying to force my hand by adding that not-quite-signature at the end of every comment. It doesn't even add the timestamp, so you didn't even add any information. The thing is, I was going to change the color anyways. The main reason I didn't want to sign is that my signature is purple, too, since (as of when I changed it) we were allowed to personalize our signatures. I chose this purple specifically because it was touted as readable on another site, yet different. (It's no darker than the followed link color.) My monitor is going bad, and it's still perfectly legible, if gauche with the new colorful theme. I'm now trying to figure out a way to personalize it so that it fits the color theme, and actually has something to do with my name. But I've had to take to fixing the color on the Wikia widgets and Home pages first. Until then, enjoy my purple signature. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 18:58, January 11, 2010 (UTC) Wait a second. It doesn't even make the request. User talk pages have their own section, and nothing about requiring signatures is there. If y'all want to enforce that, you might want to make it clearer that's what it means. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 19:01, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :It falls under the general "signing your posts" bit. Which applies to all pages. Don't selectively pick and choose. I've reworded it to try to make the point for you. Which, I'm sure, will still fail to be made. -- sulfur 19:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC) There you are again with the attitude. Stop it. Acting like a jerk is not allowed. Stop assuming bad faith. Follow policy yourself. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 12:00, January 13, 2010 (UTC) :C64: I'm not entirely sure what your problem is, especially when you don't give any examples. If you're referring to the comment above, take a close look at who signed it. Yes... me. I signed it. So if that comment's your beef, take it up with me. -- sulfur 12:07, January 13, 2010 (UTC) I responded on his page because you did. I took it you were the same person. Why else would you respond on his talk page? No matter. All that happened is that, on my talk page TWO YEARS AGO I had thought it was an okay idea not to sign my own talk page, but change the color of text. I'd pretty much even forgotten about it. I haven't been doing anything at all lately here except trying to fix the skin, because the Wikia widgets are very jarring on this dark background, and I think the user panel should match the other panels on all the other pages. (I don't remember them being messed up when you first created the news skin.) I noticed that one person had said "You need to sign, even on your own talk page." So I said, "I don't see why I need to sign on my own talk page." In other words, I wanted somebody to give me a reason. Morder did so, but he also went through and signed them all for me. And said, "If you don't want this to happen, then follow policy." I thought this was quite rude. I was steaming mad, but I that the above was a very civil response. I come back, and I see a comment that says, "I clarified the statement. But that probably won't be enough for you. Don't pick and choose." How is that not supposed to be rude? Why assume that I intentionally misread it and will continue to do so, rather than assume that I didn't get it, and that I would appreciate your attempt to make it clearer? I tried to fix it a bit too. I'd appreciate your comments. I realized after the fact that my comment was probably ruder than yours, and was going to fix it. But, since you've already responded, I am leaving it as is. I'm going through a pretty hard time right now (foreclosure on my house, bankruptsy, panic disorder, depression), and I'm probably a bit too on edge. That's why I had been staying away from anything remotely controversial. And I feel like I had a controversy thrown on my lap. I don't want to cause problems, but I don't want to let people be rude to me. It doesn't help that I'm now scared that you guys won't even look at my proposal to make the skin look a wee bit better. I've spent way too long on it for it to be rejected because I didn't know about a policy two years ago. But, if you feel it's okay to be rude to me, then I feel I must have done something absolutely horrible. I didn't mean any harm. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 12:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC) And now I see the reason I should hold off before I respond. While it still seems you were accusing me of "picking and choosing," I can read the other comment as you being self-effacing. You could be saying "I tried to make it clearer, but I don't know if I did a good job. What do you think?" My response thus should have been. "I like your change. However, I wasn't picking and choosing. The sections are separated, and do not clearly refer back to each other. I'll try to fix it to show you what I mean." Anyways, the main problem that I don't know how to fix is to explain WHY it's important to sign your own talk page, rather than try to be stylish and use something else. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 13:08, January 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Anyone can reply to a general statement/question on my talk page unless it specifically requires a comment from me. Your statements had no such requirement so anyone can reply. As for signing your own talk page...it's clear you don't remember all the time as evidenced by this talk page's history which required you to sign it after you already posted. It would probably help you to sign all talk pages so you won't forget. I never said anything rude, I simply stated you should follow policy. You took it as being rude and that was up to you to do so, I didn't call you a jerk I just said "follow policy". You're the one who started calling people names. (I can only assume you did as a result of your above mentioned problems.) Now...you said you wish you didn't have controversy thrown in your lap but if you had at least listened to what people have said to you then you wouldn't have had any controversy. People are here to offer you advice and you just seem to have ignored it rather than considering it. Anyway, I consider this discussion over. If you still have a problem with "rudeness" take it up on the other person's talk page and not mine. — Morder (talk) 17:17, January 13, 2010 (UTC) Let's take this one part at a time. # I had a "beef" with your actions. Therefore, I only expected an answer from you. When I saw the response from Sulfur, I thought it was you. The names are quite similar. # I don't like that you tried to infer how my mind works. The reason I forget to sign has nothing to do with my talk page, and everything to do with the fact that I haven't been here in a long time. Still, thanks for finally answering my question--"Why should I sign my own talk page?" "Because it helps you stay in the habit of doing so elsewhere." Had you answered me thusly, I wouldn't have had a problem. # You didn't "simply state that I should follow policy." Had you done so, I wouldn't have been upset. You signed all my unsigned comments for me. You even said, "If you follow policy, this sort of thing won't happen." How am I not supposed to take that as a threat, even if a fairly innocuous one? That is what I had a problem with. #I don't know where you got the idea that I thought you called me a jerk. I simply believe that threatening someone, even with something as innocuous as signing their posts, is improper behavior. #I'm not calling any names. I was rude, but I admitted such, and said I only posted without thinking. I think what it throwing you is my use of the word "jerkish". But this is describing behavior, not you as a person. Heck, I saw some of the comments you made on some other pages. You're a pretty nice guy. That's why the way you responded hurt so much. I can't blame it on you having a different style of talking that just gets on my nerves, like a certain admin here. (See my talk page. I was trying to help a poster get over feeling that the guy was rude, and I used some poor verbiage that was insulting. And the thing is, I don't even remember who either person was.) #The problem I have with both you and the admin that responded is that you are not assuming good faith. Since you both made the same mistake, have similar names, and responded to something I thought was clearly intended for you, I got y'all mixed up. But, just sticking with you: you said I am "not following advice." It can't be that I didn't understand it. It can't be that nobody told me it was a policy I was violating, and not just some stodgy custom. No, it had to be because I willfully decided not to listen to people who were trying to help me. Can you see why that would rub someone the wrong way? #Even if you don't, check the little datestamp. The advice I got was two years ago. During that time, if I made any edit to any talk page, I signed it. I didn't even know anyone had said anything since my last response. Which is why I responded so late. It wasn't an act of defiance, it was a (perhaps poorly formed) request for information. #Finally, I'm going to take the first step. I'm sorry. From your response, you obviously weren't trying to be rude. You were trying to help. And I appreciate that. I just wish you would have given me a chance to fix my own problem, instead of doing it for me. They're my comments. I should be the one to sign them. Now, since you've done that, I can't even sign it myself, since that would involve deleting your "not-quite signatures," and, as they are comments, they are sacrosanct. The best I could do (and still follow policy) was sign your comments with the same template, and then sign that. #And I'm sorry I didn't just say what I said in item 8. I'm sure that would have went over better. I hope you can forgive me for being so--well--rude. Cheers. -- 19:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC) :Like I said, It's done and over...I'm not going to read a huge post by you again, just leave it be — Morder (talk) 20:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC) Of Stones and Gol No problem. ;-) From what I gather, the "Gol" reference originated in the TMP novelization.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:01, January 14, 2010 (UTC)